EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 15, 1995

.1106

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), this is a consideration of the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years as described in the departmental outlook.

We are very fortunate to have with us today the Honourable Ron Irwin, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, along with some staff from the department, to present the outlook on priorities and expenditures for the department in the coming years.

Minister, we thank you very much for your attendance today to explain to the committee what's going to be happening in the future. We would ask that you proceed when you're ready, and if you wish to introduce your staff, we would happy to hear from them.

Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you for inviting us, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be here. I've brought very senior staff with me.

When I was sitting on the other side, chairing one of the committees in the 1980-84 period, I always suspected that the ministers brought all the big guns so the ministers wouldn't get into trouble. I want to reverse that. I brought people here today who are very knowledgeable. They're very senior. In introducing them, I want to identify where their expertise lies.

Mr. John Rayner is an assistant deputy minister. He has very extensive knowledge. His area of responsibility is the whole area north of 60 except on the Quebec side.

Ms Shirley Serafini is my associate deputy minister. She has been with DIAND for about six months now, but comes with extensive experience from PCO before that and a lot of experience before that - maybe too much.

Mr. Jack Stagg does policy and corporate direction. More than that, he's the primary person responsible for the inherent right policy and its drafting. Lately I've been calling him brilliant, but he's going to ask for a raise or another job.

Mr. Alan Williams is in corporate services, but that doesn't explain it. This is the man who pretty well single-handedly negotiated, on the government side, the Manitoba dismantling.

Because we've cut down in so many places and because of a new philosophy at DIAND, the senior people are out in the trenches doing this. I think they're setting a trend for employees below them; at the senior level we have to get out there and interact with aboriginal people.

I forwarded to you the document ``Outlook on Priorities and Expenditures'', and that's what I'll be dealing with.

We face many challenges as parliamentarians, sometimes too many; there are so many demands. But we have a responsibility to take these challenges on and turn them into opportunities to, in the words of the Prime Minister, ``heal this country; put dignity and respect back into this country''. I think it's working.

.1110

Today I'd like to outline some of the challenges we have at DIAND, specifically facing first nations and the north, and the activities we intend to undertake to hopefully find some solutions. The outlook document is my department's tool for attempting to do just that. It's something relatively new, I think; we put out exactly where we'd like to go and then get input from the committee and Canadians.

It presents the view for the medium term - the next three years - with an outline of the challenges the department will face and our views on how best to address them with the resources that are available. The resources are limited, and I think first nations are starting to understand that. We will work with them, but there are limited resources. We have to act in a fiscally responsible manner.

Building partnerships and strengthening communities are the two main principles guiding our work. Initially outlined in our famous red book, these two themes have been confirmed over the past year and a half by the aboriginal people, elders, and first nations leaders across this country.

In building the themes, we're taking a very pragmatic approach, step by step, looking at the errors that have been made in the past vis-à-vis approach. Why didn't the Meech Lake approach, the Charlottetown approach, and the white paper approach work? Because they weren't pragmatic and they didn't show results. That's how government works. That is self-government: taking a problem, trying to deal with it and moving on to the next one.

A number of specific initiatives are presented in the red book. I want to assure the members of this committee and, through this forum, the aboriginal people across the country that we will accomplish what we have set out to do.

In the first year and a half we had a red book. These are wonderful words - ``spirit'', ``intent'', ``treaty'', ``discussion'', ``self-government'' - but they are just words. Throughout the year and a half we've tried to make the red book work. Something is going on in all parts of the country.

Now I have to have the help of my fellow parliamentarians in the field and here. Just where do we go from here? How do we enhance what we started? It has been difficult starting, but the start has been made, and I'm pretty proud of the start we've made.

One of the key features of our policy is the recognition of the inherent right to self-government as an existing aboriginal and treaty right within section 35 of the 1982 Constitution. That's our red book policy; it's what the Prime Minister said on October 13, 1993, before the election; it's what our Minister of Finance said in 1990 at the AFN meeting. Ovide Mercredi pointed out that in 1990 Paul Martin, the first person to ever come to the AFN, said this. I myself didn't know it went that far back. It's a deep commitment of the government and of the party.

We are working to develop an inherent right policy proposal that is practical, pragmatic, and flexible, and within which aboriginal people and all levels of government - federal, provincial, territorial, and first nations - can work together. Going back to the words of former Prime Minister Trudeau ``We can't have 600 countries in Canada''.... If we're going to do that, we might as well divide up and go home now. We have to work these arrangements so that in the end this land mass works and works well.

I think this will provide aboriginal people with a more effective means to govern their own future. I look forward to announcing our policy in the near future, and I believe it will be the most progressive and practical recognition of aboriginal rights in the world.

Even in the House - for the benefit of Mr. Duncan - we may disagree on many things, but I think we have a general agreement that we have to move empowerment over. We have to do it in such a way that there's accountability and fiscal responsibility.

I've come to realize, after a year and a half of listening to the Reform, that our ends are very similar; it's on how to get there that we have the day-to-day disagreements.

Since implementing the inherent right will not occur overnight, first nations and I are still faced on a daily basis with the paternalistic restrictions of the Indian Act. I have proposed, as an interim measure, amending the most archaic sections of the Indian Act.

.1115

I wrote to all 608 chiefs and said we have to get rid of this act. We don't want to reform this act so it lasts another hundred years. We don't it to replace what we want to do. But it causes tremendous problems. For instance, if they want to develop a mall or bring a bank on the reserve, the amount of red tape and paternalism is unacceptable, because they can't keep their financing together. It's difficult enough to do these things in a non-native community.

There are irritants in the act that we can clean up and get rid of. But I've told them quite clearly I'm not going to do it unless they want me to move ahead and I get some consensus from them. To that end, I said I wanted their letters by the end of May. We have some, but not enough. So I'm going to revamp that and give them a little bit more time. Then I'll give them a collage or a breakdown of the comments that have been made across the country. I'd be happy to share them with this committee.

Then I'll send it out again as an inducement for them to look at the responses and say ``This may work. Let's get with it.'' Or there might be something that's been bothering them, and if they see another first nation or tribal council responding, they may respond. When we have enough, I'm prepared to sit down with the committee and say ``Here's what they're saying across the country on what we can do with the Indian Act and how to move on from here.''

One regional initiative I'm particularly proud of and that has been heralded internationally as the best example of a process to implement self-government is the Manitoba framework. I just got back from there last night. It seems it was years ago, but it was only on December 7, 1994, that it was signed.

You would be very proud, as Canadians, of the movement. Where the loyalty was to the first nation - a system we created, in which every first nation is loyal to itself - they are now talking about loyalty to the whole, the sixty first nations.

It's simple little things. They have their first newspaper out. They had the Bankers Association there last night. I hadn't noticed them come up, but I turned around and there were eight or nine senior bankers sitting there with a full presentation to them.

It's something new. I think we would be proud, on a non-partisan basis, that these things can be done. They are now talking about aboriginal banks. The first national aboriginal bank, co-ventured with a major bank, may be announced very shortly - within the next eight weeks, I would think. These things are happening.

They understand self-government is very difficult. The example that comes forward is they might have enough money for one school, but there are 10 good proposals. Some of you have been involved in education as teachers. I've had some minor involvement as a trustee and as a lecturer at Lake Superior State College. I wanted to approve them all. Every time I see a proposal, I want to approve it, but we don't have the money to do that.

They're learning that self-government is very difficult. If they have ten proposals and they can only approve one, they have to sit down. They can only make one person happy, and nine people will be unhappy. That is self-government. It is a learning process.

We try to make clear to them that they have to define the priority, whether it's distance education, a local school, a high school, or something to do with universities. The budgets are limited. Then they'll come back with a recommendation. I've said if it's reasonable, we will probably go with those types of recommendations.

This is completely different from what happened in the past, when the Indian agent did everything. There's a certain amount of that mentality still out there: that it's easier for us to do it and there's less political backlash in their own communities if they can blame it on the federal government. But this is working.

In the area of land claims, committee members asked me last year to consider the feasibility of not requiring a blanket extinguishment of aboriginal rights or title in future land claims agreements. It was fairly serious. I think it was the Sahtu legislation that was hung up on that very thing.

To that end we retained a fact finder, Judge Hamilton, and he will be reporting within the next month, I believe. I haven't seen a document and I haven't talked to him, but if you take what the royal commission has said on extinguishment, which is very sensible - no preconditions on negotiations, sitting down at tables and these types of things - and what Judge Hamilton will say, we will have the tools to move on what the committee was concerned about.

.1120

There is a certain fear in the aboriginal community that these reports, especially Judge Hamilton's, will be government policy because it was commissioned by us. I've made it clear to them that this is not government policy until it's government policy. This is just a tool that the committee will have and that the government will have to move forward. I'm looking forward to Judge Hamilton's report.

He's had over 65 meetings with aboriginal people and non-aboriginal groups. He's received more than 76 written submissions. I think it's going to be a pretty good paper when we get it. All around the country, it seems, where I am he's been there before me, and he's creating a very good impression.

In the north we're looking at a changing federal role. It will be a priority to decide how to best manage the political and economic development of what will become three distinct territories: Yukon; Nunavut; and the western Northwest Territories.

With the creation of Nunavut, we are redrawing the map of Canada. Nunavut will provide its residents with the means to effect economic and social change to improve the lives of its residents.

The Nunavut implementation commission has presented its first set of comprehensive recommendations on the structure of the future Nunavut government, including training, sites for the capital, and other issues under their mandate. Discussions will be held over the coming months with the Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tungavik incorporated on the recommendations of the implementation commission.

It's an interesting report and very extensive. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but probably Mr. Anawak has. It's a public report. There are fundamental things that we will have to deal with, such as where the capital is going to be, the type of trading, and whether there should or should not be a library. It's very interesting.

Anybody involved with any local municipal politics would really enjoy it. Your chairman was a mayor. It's really basic, such as how to set up almost a province. There are only 17,000 people on one-fifth of the country's land mass. It's 20% of the land mass - part of Jack Anawak's riding. This has to be set up as a government. It's going to be challenging.

I'm only happy that we have until April 1, 1999, to implement it. That's the agreement that the former government had negotiated.

It really gives our country character. It's been a year since I've seen you and to go into a place like the GNWT and see eight official languages, eight translations, with everything there, there's nothing like this in the world. It's four more than the United Nations. To have the Russians looking at us on how to do things right is amazing.

We don't have to take lessons from anybody in this world on how to live together as people. I think we're doing a pretty good job. I think that when the new territory is created, it's going to be something. It's going to be difficult to do, but it's going to be something that we can show the world on how to live together.

The growth of diamond, oil, and gas explorations in the Northwest Territories, as well as mining and forestry initiatives in the Yukon, are all signs that economic development activities are on the upswing in the north.

I just got back from the Yukon on Monday, where we installed the first aboriginal person as commissioner in the Yukon. She almost broke into tears about six times. It was tremendous to see. Judy Gingell was the negotiator. You may have met her on the Yukon legislation that came through. She's now the commissioner, and it was a tremendous ceremony.

In that area, in the Yukon, they have only three basic resources, which are tourism, mining, and the very fragile forestry. I think mining is going to go well. I think they gross around $600 million a year. It's the main industry. I think there has to be less emphasis on government, because government is a big industry up there. We can't run the country based on more government throughout the country.

.1125

I'm hoping that the committee and we, as Canadians, look a little more north of 60 as to what has happened. Too often it gets forgotten here in Ottawa at the political level and at the bureaucratic level.

You have only three MP up there looking after this huge section of Canada: Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Anawak, and the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. There has to be more emphasis on that.

The Arctic Environmental Strategy Program is a major achievement, not only in helping to improve the northern environment, but also in providing northern jobs, enhanced skills of northerners, and generated other economic benefits. The AES is an excellent example of putting the commitment to sustainable development into action.

Here again, with respect to the large amount of money being spent up there on the environment and research, it has to be better coordinated. The ministries are doing them independently, and I'm hoping that through people such as Whit Fraser, we can bring it together so we'll have a better base of what we're doing in the area.

Although we have taken important steps on the domestic front, northern issues, particularly environmental problems, cannot be addressed by one nation alone. Canada is working actively in cooperation with our seven circumpolar neighbours on many issues, including the AES. Today these countries are working with us to form an Arctic Council to address not only environmental concerns, but the full range of Arctic issues.

It's been a learning process for me to take the globe and turn it, and see that it looks different from Jack's perspective. You just take it and you see the circle, and meet the members of the other Arctic countries.

I think having Mary Simon as our Arctic ambassador is a tremendous move. She's a tremendous woman, with a lot of skills, a lot of knowledge, and a lot of commitment. I think that will help us in drawing the various countries together, and I think we can do a lot more up there with her there. I'm not taking away from what Jack and the others are doing. I think that she will draw the other countries in. We just don't have the resources or the time to get out to the other countries and draw them in.

Two weeks ago Canada hosted a senior officials meeting here in Ottawa of all eight Arctic countries to discuss the creation of the Arctic Council. I am pleased to report consensus was reached on the need to create a council.

We have dealt with Mary Simon, and I'm looking for great things to come out of that.

In the north we have made progress in other areas as well, including the proclamation this past February of three pieces of legislation passed by Parliament last year that give effect to four Yukon first nations' final land claims and self-government agreements, as well as surface rights agreements.

We've also made significant progress in other land claims negotiations both in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. I met with all the other First Nations on Monday in Whitehorse. It's difficult for them coming together as a whole, but by passing the four pieces, they now see that these things can be done, and they're more apt to work collectively with us, with the Government of the Yukon.

The side-effect is that I met with the mining industry and the Chamber of Commerce. These other groups want us to move ahead, and they want to have a voice in how we go. I'd like that open process where it's open, they do have a voice, and nobody has veto powers. It's better to have the mayors and the various stakeholders knowing exactly where we're going, so that when it comes to us here, you know it comes with consensus.

The Indian population on a reserve is young and is growing rapidly. Almost 64% of the on-reserve registered Indian population in Canada is under 30. That compares to 43% for the Canadian population as a whole. Consequently, there is a growing need for housing, education, and social services. These services, provided to other Canadians by provincial or local governments, are funded by the federal government through my department for Indian people living on a reserve.

.1130

We're making progress. As you can see from that report....

You can almost go into a state of despair when you see everything that has gone wrong on housing, the water systems, how much more need there is, how neglectful we've been over the last hundred years, but you can't end it there. I feel as parliamentarians, we can't leave a meeting without leaving more hope than was there when we walked into the room.

It doesn't necessarily have to be money. It could be spirit; it could be getting these kids to want to be teachers. That is our job, to leave more hope when we leave the room.

While we are looking at all the things that are going wrong, look at the comparisons on page 11. In 1975 the aboriginal people were running 53 of their schools; in 1985, 229; in 1994, 372. The number of kids remaining in school to grade 12 increased 500% between 1970 and 1994. There was only 15% in 1970, and now it is 77%. It's a major achievement by aboriginal people.

Enrolment in post-secondary schools increased over 500% between 1970 and 1994. It went from 432 in 1970, and it's now 23,000, with 150,000 graduates. I make this point over and over that in 1968, there were only 600 aboriginal students in post-secondary schools, and now they have 150,000 graduates with 23,000 attending.

Infant mortality has dropped 60% approximately. I'm not a mathematician, so these are just approximates. From 1978 to 1990 the infant mortality rate declined from 26.5 per thousand to 10.2 per thousand.

In program delivery, they are now doing 80% of their program delivery.

Many of these successes are because they feel that they are part of the process, that there is a certain amount of empowerment, and that they are moving ahead.

Improving the day-to-day living conditions of first nations and Inuit people will be a major part of my focus over the next few years. This, combined with the implementation of self-government arrangements, should put first nations and Inuit communities well on their way to building healthy and self-sustaining communities. This is an objective that I believe is shared by all parliamentarians and all Canadians.

I am particularly pleased that you too recognize the importance of these issues. Your decision to establish a subcommittee on education, under the able chairmanship of Robert Bertrand, is demonstrable proof of your support. I firmly believe that education is the key to strong Indian and Inuit communities.

As evidence of our commitment, and in keeping with the red book promises, we provided an additional $20 million for Indian and Inuit post-secondary education in 1994-95. This was catch-up money.

I don't think anybody here feels that we should deprive an Indian or an Inuit youth of education, not provide the skills, and have them on welfare because we didn't have some long-term planning. I think once they are educated and they have the tools, then we have done our job.

The annual funding for post-secondary education has increased by $48 million since we were elected. This year it is over $261 million.

Your subcommittee's study of Indian and Inuit education will be a valuable tool in determining what needs to be done in these areas. I understand that since February your subcommittee has met with many aboriginal groups, university professors, and officials of my department. I understand that all the provincial ministers of education have been invited to appear before the subcommittee and that the members have travelled across the country.

I think the challenge to the subcommittee is that the fund is just over a billion dollars; we can't keep increasing it, so how can we do it better? I will give you an example.

With the 150,000 graduates, there are around 300 lawyers, but only 59 doctors, and only 5 certified foresters. We have lots of lawyers, with 300 lawyers, and lots of teachers, but there is a need for more scientists. You can't tell someone at 18 or 19 that they are going to be a scientist; it has to start when they are 4 or 5. I am hoping the committee looks at distance education, how to fill the holes....

.1135

For instance, we are getting into oil and gas devolution in Alberta and Saskatchewan. About 120 first nations are called gas and oil chiefs, about 50 of them have extensive holdings, but there are not enough geologists. They don't have enough technical people, and I need your guidance on how we can take the money we have and how we can fill the holes that are there.

You don't need a lot of study as to what is needed, because that is obvious. Most of you know what is needed out there because you see the demand for it. We are not talking about little areas where there is a vacuum; we are talking about large areas where there is a vacuum. How can we say there is aboriginal medicine with only 58 doctors in the whole country? I don't think it will work. We need doctors who will go back to the community and will stay there. We can't keep sending southern doctors on secondments; they have to be part of the community.

Housing conditions on some reserves continue to be among the very worst in Canada. This is simply unacceptable in our country. How many former mayors do we have here? At least one. Councilmen here.... Whenever we needed 50, 60, or 70 housing units, you could always find the Rotary or the Kiwanis or the Catholic Church to form a corporation and we would go out and get it. This does not exist in the aboriginal community.

As a mayor, I could get 50 houses if I needed 50 units. I can't get that in this ministry. We have forgotten those people out there. It is not good enough to say that now we owe $500 billion as a level table, everybody has to suffer the pain equally. That would be okay if we had done our job with the Indian and the Inuit. If we had done our job, fine, but we can't allow people to live in poverty, because we have for 100 years, and not do the proper thing in housing and education all of a sudden because we are worried about the deficit - which we should be - and we've got this so-called level table.

We will never bring them, in my lifetime, close to that level table, but we have to bring them up as close as possible before we start talking about sharing the pain. They have taken the pain for the last 100 years, while we've done the things we needed in our own societies.

We have to find better ways of doing the housing. I am not a contractor but I think I have met with everybody in Canada who is, trying to find new ideas. Under the red book we are supposed to develop skills as well as provide housing. I have looked at all different types and forms of housing.

What we have done in the last two months is take a pilot project of about $1.5 million to build log houses, not log cabins. These are log houses, CMHC standards, with rugs, septic systems, and we can do it for around $50,000, which is about half the price.

I was up in Dokis first nation about three weeks ago to meet one of the builders. She is a woman, about mid-thirties. Her grandmother was a chief for 27 years and has the Order of Canada. Her mother has been the chief for three years. This woman knows how to do log houses. Jim Doughty and I looked at what she had done. She has aboriginal employees and she demands a full day's work and skills, and they have learned.

We then looked at what one of the employees had done from the skills he had picked up. He had built his own log house - I should have brought the pictures - just beautiful. I would like to own one. She is going to do four of them. She is starting.

These are the type of people we have to find, how to do it cheaper, build the skills and so on. On top of that, we asked her to come to Thunder Bay. Three members came out to Thunder Bay with me and we asked her to teach the other people there. She was nervous, but she put on a full presentation. She had a room and she had people in and told them, this is what I can do.

She is not saying, I can do it as well as the white people, the non-aboriginals. When I use that term, I don't mean it in the derogatory sense. I hear that every day. The aboriginal people define all of us - Irish, Italian, French - as the white people. I'm getting into this rut. I should just say non-aboriginals. She is not saying she can do it as well as non-aboriginals; she is saying right in my face, I can do it better than you. These are the types of people who are out there.

.1140

In New Brunswick, they're now co-venturing with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, MacMillan Bloedel, and the First Nations of New Brunswick a $100 million project. The aboriginal people have only 10% of it. It is a strand board plant that has to be two football fields long. This type of co-venturing happens. They're in there; they're part of the process.

So we have the big stuff that can be done, and we can have the little stuff going. We cannot continue to have social assistance growing and economic development the way it is. We have to be able to find the winners, make sure they're in business, help them out, and then walk away from it.

Now there's a certain amount of fear. Yesterday, in Manitoba, I said, I know you're frightened, but you think we're not frightened on the other side? If small business in Canada has a 50% failure, do you think you're going to have it any better? If we can have one business for every failure, that's the national average in small business. I'm no longer asking how many jobs it employs. You've seen in the second page of every government brief, that ``this provides 50 or 60 jobs''. I don't care if it's one, two, or one hundred. As long as it's sustainable, it's solid, it's in good hands, and we can walk away from it and not have to be checking it out once a month.

Self-sufficiency for first nations Inuit people is absolutely necessary. I think the only way we can help them is to go out there and find these graduates and find these people with skills and work with them as a government. I'm not talking about government in Ottawa; I'm talking about every little office I have across the country. I'm asking them to get out of those offices and try to find who those winners are.

I'm holding consultations with First Nations and Inuit peoples in the spirit of true cooperation to identify any changes we need to make the department's economic development programs work. Such a process will ensure that future economic development programs focus on activities that lead directly to job creation.

About two or three months ago, I sent a message out to the regional directors general that said we're looking at our economic development package, which is around $50 million. This is not the social assistance program; this is the economic development program. We want to see your profit and loss statements, and we want to see who the winners are. If we're getting our message across to the non-aboriginal community, the message has to be, here's what's been done in, let's say, northern Saskatchewan - like Meadowlake, where they've taken a bankrupt company and they've been operating five years now in the forestry sector. They employ 300 people, and they spin off about 1,000 people in your area from that.

These are the winners, and we want to see that. Let's call it true economic development, product driven, and a series of winners. At first the aboriginal community across the country was worried. They thought we were getting out of the business. When you get a notice like this from the minister, they think this is just the way we are going to off-load. I met with them across the country. They now understand; they're much more positive. They say, we understand what you're doing, and we want this too. We don't want to be on welfare; we don't want to wind up with our names in the paper every day; we want to be true contributors.

So they're working with us, and I'm hoping that spirit will permeate through all the other ministries. There are several other ministries, not just mine, involved with aboriginal economic development. In consultation with first nations, my regional officials are examining how to more effectively use the very limited economic development funding, including the utilization of social assistance to enhance job opportunities.

I've had to review mentally where we're going in the next four or five years and in the next decade. I think collectively - and I could use your assistance from the committee - the main question facing us is how we turn social assistance into economic development. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the social assistance budget is $1 billion and the economic development budget is $50 million. It should be reversed, and I think that's our main challenge. How do we mix and match training, economic development, and things like the aboriginal banking system that's coming into play and turn it around?

The other things we can work with are housing and education. We're making progress in health, but the major challenge to this committee and to parliamentarians is to reverse that figure. If it's not addressed and we don't do something, it's not going to go away. It will just go on and on. It has to be addressed head-on and very forthrightly with the aboriginal people. This is a problem; how are we going to solve it?

.1145

To that end, last February we hosted an aboriginal financing forum in New Brunswick. We brought together bankers, trust companies and aboriginal businessmen from across the country. The facilitator taking care of it wasn't running it well for the first couple of days; it just didn't go well.

These aboriginal business people are managing funds of $10 million or $20 million. They're not interested in a little grant here or a little tokenism there. They're interested in fairly large-sized development and viable small businesses.

The bankers and the aboriginal business people - and this was great to see - asked our facilitator to step down, which he did. Chief Larry Sault of the Mississauga Chippewas in New Credit chaired the meeting and got it back on the agenda. The last two days were great, with even the province being there and the appropriate minister saying this was a good idea. They have agreed to report in three months and again in six months.

Are they reporting to you, Alan?

Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I'm steering it, yes.

Mr. Irwin: The committee might want to know how that's going.

Yesterday eight or nine bankers were in Manitoba, working with the aboriginal people, and in Saskatchewan they're working on an aboriginal banking system. It's very positive. I'm not going to kid you; it's not been easy. But it's absolutely necessary.

I've made it quite clear that the banks are invited to co-venture with aboriginal people and they're welcome, but the aboriginal people of this country are not going to be denied access to the financial institutions for one reason, that they're aboriginal people. When the Prime Minister of Canada said he's looking at dignity and respect for Canadians, he didn't mean non-aboriginal Canadians; he meant all Canadians. They have to be part and parcel of getting access to capital or they can't do these things.

On gas and oil, the first nations of Alberta and Saskatchewan want to evolve their funds and their power over them. The way it works in gas and oil is it's their resource on their reserve, but they can't do much with it without being blessed by the federal government.

We've put some pretty knowledgeable people into the process to see how it will work. We have a first group saying they will work towards taking control of their gas and oil resources. Oddly enough, it was not an Alberta first nation; it was the White Bear First Nation from Saskatchewan. Because that chief had the courage to be first, now we have four or five others saying ``Hey, he did it. Let's start trying.''

That's really in the initial stages, but I find once you get one or two knowledgeable chiefs with the courage to move forward, the rest is easier. It's getting the first to make the commitment, overcome the fear factor, and move on. With what we can do with education and the devolution, I'm hoping good things will come out of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Fiscal restraint is a reality for all governments and for all segments of the Canadian population, including first nations and territories. However, the federal government is taking steps to ensure that those most in need, which includes aboriginal people, do not bear an unfair share of restraint measures.

As a result, the department's budget for programs and services, excluding major transfers to the territories, will grow from $3.76 billion in 1994-95 to $4.21 billion in 1997-98. While this represents an average annual growth rate of 3.8%, it is still a reduction from the 8% growth traditionally experienced.

Funding for Indian and Inuit programming will increase by 6% in 1995-96 and by 3% in each of the following two years. It sounds like a big increase, but the problem is the birth rate of aboriginals is now 2.3 times the Canadian average.

.1150

The federal government has the primary responsibility to fund basic services for Indian people on reserve and for residents in the territories. These are basic, everyday services necessary to sustain and develop communities: education, social services, public buildings, local governments, roads, water systems, sewage systems, etc. Including territorial transfers, over 80% of the department's budget goes towards the provision of these services.

Beyond the basics, the statutory Indian Act requirements must be met and treaty and land claim obligations must be fulfilled. There is little discretionary funding. That's why I'm hoping the committee can put a little bit more imagination into it.

To meet our budget limitations, a variety of measures will be taken. My department will reduce administration costs by $20 million over the next three years by cutting back on staff, transportation, communications, professional services, supplies, and equipment. The number of staff positions in the department will be reduced by another 300 over the next three years, in addition to the 442 positions eliminated over the last two years.

That's not been easy. I know it's easy to take the platform that we're going to get rid of civil servants, but these are people with families who are just hardly making a go of it. So we're trying to do the lay-offs as compassionately as possible. It's not been easy, but of the original 442, I think we managed to place all but twelve elsewhere.

Ms Shirley Serafini (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): It's down below ten, I think.

Mr. Irwin: The civil service is smaller, with the attrition and everything else that's being done. It gets more and more difficult, because the sponge gets drier and drier where the people go. Only so many people are going to retire; there's only so much attrition.

As well, funding provided to first nations for salaries related to public services, such as education and social service, will not increase over the next two years. Those salaries are frozen within the aboriginal community. This is consistent with the freeze on the salaries of other public servants.

This does not mean we are doing away with our policy to hire more aboriginal employees and appoint aboriginal people to important positions in government agencies. This policy not only stays in place but is being enhanced to reflect the spirit of partnership that we are building upon with the first nations. Self-government is just a word unless aboriginal people are able to be where the levers of power are.

The problem I have right now is that every chief wants to deal directly with me. This goes back to the idea that they're dealing with the sovereign. In fact, in many cases the four people around me here are the ones they should be dealing with; they're the regional director generals. They have to be brought in to the civil service to understand how the civil service and democracy in government works.

There are major challenges. Originally I was hesitant to even take this job on, but having been here now for 19 months, I can't think of a better job or a better committee to belong to than one involved with aboriginal people. There are so many challenges, but there are so many successes.

I go from despair, as in the case of Pukatawagan, where 900 of the 1,700 people on a reserve had rashes because of improper sewage, to looking at the Cheslatta Carriers, where an 18-year-old girl was crying for something that happened in the 1950s. The healing has been taking place.

We see this across the country. There are 5,000 aboriginal businesses, some big and some small, and 150,000 graduates. They're articulate; they have their lawyers; they have their teachers. We see the successes.

The bottom line is they have to be given a chance. If they're given a chance, we will have done our job.

Thanks for letting me go on so long and thank you for inviting me.

.1155

I'm open to questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

We will conduct the questioning in our usual fashion: 10 minutes to the Bloc, 10 minutes to the Reform, 10 minutes to the Liberal Party and then 5 minutes for whoever wants to ask some more questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I have been very happy to hear your presentation, Mr. Minister. I was going to spend the week in my riding but I came here specifically to ask you questions. It's not often that we get a chance to ask a Minister questions in public, especially in front of the media.

I also know that you are especially well suited for the aboriginal portfolio. You are a man of action, you visit the reserves in person just as I do. But despite all these fine qualities, as a critic for the Opposition I need to find some faults.

I will only ask three questions, but they will build a political crescendo. The first, which doesn't have many implications, is on the Indian Act.

You told us that you sent letters to several chiefs, maybe to all the chiefs, asking them how they would react to amending the Indian Act. This could send out various signals. I regret not having seen this letter.

Does this mean for instance that we will not do away with this legislation before 10 or 20 years? Does it also mean that you don't consult directly with the First Nations Assembly.

I would like to know where you are going since in Manitoba people want to move forward faster and, all of a sudden, here comes this surprise: the government wants to amend the Indian Act. I would like to know the real reasons behind this.

[English]

Mr. Irwin: Self-government, inherent rights and these things may take 10 or 15 years. The Manitoba dismantling has a 10-year timeframe. In the meantime we should at least do as much housecleaning as we can to get rid of the more archaic sections of the Indian Act.

For instance, when I was a counsel to first nations, specifically Ojibways in Northern Ontario, there was a tremendous amount of frustration, especially in terms of development. As I indicated, they might have a business they're ready to go with and there's just layer after layer of authorities, band council resolutions and district offices that they have to go through.

In the Garden River Band, a piece of their land had been taken for a gravel pit to build a railroad. They bought the land back. It took four or five years to put it back to band status because of all these layers of bureaucracy.

In Saskatchewan right now I believe over a million acres of land - a huge amount, at any rate - have been purchased. They can't get it over into the reserves because we have archaic sections of the Indian Act on third-party interest, like the lines and roads where you can't make the movement. It's a mechanism; it doesn't take away anybody's rights.

They know about these irritants across the country. I've made it clear to them that all I want to do is get rid of these irritants. Maybe it could be expanded. For instance, it says ``two years'' under the Indian Act right now. Most of the chiefs find they can't operate with a two-year term. It's being discussed that band elections will go to three years.

I don't know if they'll go that far, but that would be great, because they're saying ``I can't operate in a two-year term. It takes me six months to break in my new council. I get one year of administration and then six months into election. It has to go to three years.''

It's not to replace what we're going to do. We're going to do something 10 or 15 years from now, but we should get rid of these things that have been irritants to them.

Originally the AFN wanted everything channelled directly through it, and I said I'd work with the AFN, but I'd also work directly with chiefs. I did meet with the AFN on this issue about two to three weeks ago and I suggested to them that when we get the first round of letters in, I'll share the information with them and it would be better if we put out a joint letter, the AFN and ourselves, to the chiefs, to induce them to get more letters in. I don't know if that'll come about, but whether it does or not, we have a process we're going to stick with: getting the information and moving on.

.1200

With Manitoba, they wanted a letter, which I provided. What we're doing with the Indian Act will not take away from the agreement. That was provided back on May 5 or thereabouts. This does not detract from what we're doing under the agreement in Manitoba.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I'll go directly to my third question because I'm afraid I'll run out of time. That question has been on my lips for several years, Mr. Minister, but especially since I'm Indian Affairs critic.

I have listened to your statement and you haven't mentioned Quebec at all. I know that when you come to Quebec, this often raises a storm. The last time there has been a big raucus. I would like to talk about Kanesatake.

At the present time, everybody in Quebec seems to be of the opinion that the federal government does not want to solve the problems of Kanesatake. Contrary to what you may think, everybody knows that I'm not a close friend of Jerry Peltier. I believe you have a fiduciary responsibility with regard to what's going on there.

[English]

The Chairman: I think with the minister's presentation here they were talking about very general, broad issues and directions for the department. You may wish to use an example and get some general broad direction, but I don't think we're in the business of talking about very specific types of situations and issues. Otherwise we could be here for a considerable length of time. Could you make your question a little broader?

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I will ask a question dealing with First Nations in Quebec. Is there, in your broad outlook, a link between the referendum on the future of Quebec and the aboriginal issue in Quebec? Could it be that it's not in the federal government's interest to have negotiations move forward in Quebec in order to weaken the referendum campaign?

We have seen the Brinks caper in 1976, just before the election of the PQ. Now Quebeckers are wondering if there will be another Oka incident during the referendum campaingn. This is my question. Is this your agenda with regard to negociations in Quebec?

[English]

Mr. Irwin: Actually, there are fewer shenanigans there than there were when the former governments were here in Ottawa. There are no more Okas in Quebec. There's no more $200 million spent on the military. Like you, in Kanesatake...you were going to get kidnapped when you were in there. They didn't know where you were. You were going door to door.

I went in alone with my wife and sat down with Chief Peltier. He's been re-elected - by only 22 votes, but in this business, if you're elected, you're elected. So we can forget about the legitimacy of Grand Chief Peltier. He's legitimate. He's been elected. We had Coopers & Lybrand in there. I'm expecting the report. I don't know if it'll come directly to us or directly to them. But he's the chief. Whether you don't get along with him or not, that's.... Gerry is Gerry.

With the Huron, Max Gros-Louis, we're now sitting down in a tripartite negotiation to do a treaty, which is something new in Quebec - with the Quebec government, with Max Gros-Louis, and with the federal government. Max Gros-Louis is down there with the premier, trying to help out the province. We had a settlement offer of over $400 million to CAM, the Attikamek-Montagnais, with David Cliche.

I've had very favourable meetings with David Cliche. We have a clear understanding. He's a separatist. I'm a federalist. That doesn't take away from what we want to do for the same people, because they're not going to go away; they're going to be there.

We're working with the Inuit in the far north. We have good negotiators in there.

What I want to try to do is to get top-notch facilitators and negotiators who don't want to make this a career. A lot of our negotiators have a lot of grey hair. Go in and do the job and get it done.

.1205

Things are going better with the Algonquin, with the Abenakis. Generally, across the board, with all 10 first nations in Quebec, with the Inuit, with the 40 communities, things are going much better now than they were a year ago. It is calmer, the negotiations are going well. I took the position that I expect the country to still be there after the referendum. If Quebec were to deal positively, we will deal positively. But I know there's a fear in there of what you say. It's not correct, it's not true. What I said in Quebec, I'll say anytime. If someone wants to remain in Canada, which was the question, God bless them. If they want to stay in our country, God bless them. It's pretty simple, pretty basic.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister took 55 minutes to give his presentation, which gives you an idea of the complexity and breadth of the portfolio. I'd like to speak to some of the very same items the minister spoke to. In a general way, I'd like to offer some of my concerns in a manner, by so doing, that may lead to some constructive comments and also some concerns. There may be a little bit of time left at the end, but if not, I see there's precedent from the May meetings for some written responses. I'd be quite satisfied with that.

You covered about 10 broad areas. You more or less started off talking about the Indian Act and some of its shortcomings. I guess my major concern in this area is the fact that we have an existing act that empowers you, legislatively gives you statutory authority, and until we modernize the act we cannot create a vacuum. We currently have a vacuum because of certain circumstances, one of which was the Stoney situation that we brought up in Parliament some time ago.

The minister did ask me to involve myself somewhat in that. I must say I cannot do that. My resources are so limited that I don't have the ability to do that to any extent. My staff is telling me that I'm trying too hard in that regard.

So I have major concerns in that area and I have major concerns about what may be transpiring at this very moment, once again on the Stoney reserve.

The Chairman: This is kind of a broad discussion. Rather than getting specific, we would like to hear more general comments, using a specific example only in relation to a general question.

Mr. Duncan: That's exactly what I was trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of the self-government part of the discussion, I think you're quite familiar with the fact that I believe we're putting the cart before the horse. I do have some understanding that we've spent over $100 million as a government on self-government initiatives so far. That concerns me. I wouldn't mind some confirmation on that.

When you were talking about land claims, you -

The Chairman: Perhaps we'll allow the minister to answer those.

Mr. Duncan: Could I cover my 10 areas? Then if my time runs out, that's fine, I'll just get a written -

The Chairman: Maybe what we could do is allow the minister to answer a couple of questions. If you have more questions, you can certainly feel free to put those questions in writing to the minister. I am sure he will be able to respond to them.

.1210

Mr. Duncan: They're not on the record unless I put them here. I can write a letter any day of the week, but this is kind of a unique opportunity here. Ten minutes is limited time.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Duncan: I don't think I'm being antagonistic -

The Chairman: I don't think you are, either. There are two ways you can set out what your concerns are and have a written response.

Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem. As I said at the opening, I am at the stage of asking how we implement these things, enhance them and.... You have a forestry background, don't you, John?

Mr. Duncan: Yes, 20 years.

Mr. Irwin: Twenty years of forestry. I wouldn't mind taking these subject by subject because I've learned something from the Stoney experience. We want to have a better forestry, sustainable yield, more enforcement, and I would appreciate some input from Mr. Duncan on just where we go from here.

Mr. Duncan: I talked about 10 broad issues. I mean, fire me. I ask them every day in the House of Commons. I have no problem with it.

In terms of the whole land claims issue, you were talking specifically in reference to extinguishment. You didn't give the example of the Sahtu. I very clearly remember the Sahtu hearings that we had, in this room probably.

Mr. Irwin: We have extinguishment as a result of that, and I want us to go back and look at how we're doing it.

Mr. Duncan: But when George Cleary was sitting right where you're sitting and we talked about extinguishment, he very clearly stated that that was a quid pro quo for the negotiations. He understood very well why that was there.

Mr. Irwin: Yes.

Mr. Duncan: So what I'm saying is that a lot of this is a changing level of expectations based upon government policy and statements. I think that's a very clear example of exactly that.

You talked at quite some length on the Northwest Territories and the fact that this is virtually a province in Nunavut. I think the one thing that did not come out clearly in your statement is that virtually all of these institutions, all of that implementation plan, all of the costs, are going to fall on the federal government. You cannot, as you were doing, compare that to normal municipal and other bureaucratic institutions that are being set up.

One thing that concerns me, and concerns me a lot, is that many of the residents of the Yukon, for example, who have lived there for a long time figure they're further away from attaining provincial status now than they were 40 years ago, because the level of dependence on the federal government has gone up, not down. As you said, you cannot base your country on more government, but that's exactly what's been happening in the north in a big way.

You had some comments on education. I'd just like to say that I did have a significant role in ensuring that this is what this subcommittee looked at. The committee's well on its way to finding out some very interesting statements. I don't know if we're going to meet your terms of reference, because we set our terms of reference quite some time ago.

.1215

One of the reserves the education subcommittee did go to was Conne River in Newfoundland. I was not there, but I have talked to the chief there.

You had some comments about housing and about social assistance. The way I read what is occurring is that social assistance is actually workfare in that circumstance, and in some other circumstances.

I suspect those words don't fit Liberal philosophy or the red book, but in actual fact it is what is succeeding on some specific reserves. I know there are many bands that would like to turn their social assistance into workfare, and I think there's a huge opportunity there should people wish to pursue it. There are implications for broader policy, and that may be the stumbling block.

You talked about financial institutions and you talked about the lending institutions. I think the lending institutions can represent themselves well. They can serve the community. There's mechanisms that are being worked on and can work.

My concern is with the suppliers of goods and services that have been burnt, and burnt badly, because they've had what they thought were assurances, guarantees, and when they go to court they find that upon default they have no leverage. That's where the problem is, and I'm sure that's something you haven't been made aware of.

Am I out of time?

The Chairman: You're out of time. We will be back to you for a second round.

Mr. Irwin: Do you want me to answer these quickly?

The Chairman: Did you want to? Okay.

Mr. Irwin: Each one of these things takes about an hour, but I'll try to be clear and short.

In Alberta, specifically from the Stoneys, what I found is that the enforcement isn't good enough. I think the fine is $200 or $300 maximum for what's happening in there. At the same time, off-reserve there are even fewer restrictions. Off-reserve in Alberta, on private land, there are no restrictions. The minimal restrictions on the first nations are greater than what's off-reserve on private land.

So it's not just a problem of reserves in Alberta; it's a problem of Alberta. This is not just in Alberta. The same thing happened in Yukon. There's a tremendous demand from B.C. for more raw logs, and what I saw in Alberta is happening in B.C. and the Yukon. The people are not particularly happy in Yukon to see the raw logs going out to B.C. I'd like to sit down with you and decide how we bring it together through NAFA. How do we get proper enforcement, education? There are over 100 first nations involved in forestry and most of them do it well. One or two Stoneys set back everything, the goodwill that they're....

On the self-government side, perhaps Alan can deal with the cost of that. I agree with you on extinguishment. I'm looking at it in terms of transfers. If first nations are taking over, if they've got administration for education so they can take over jurisdiction, that's one less thing we have to do. They're doing teacher certification, curriculum development. That's an exchange.

What they're concerned about is that in two or three days of negotiations they will have signed off in treaty half the provinces, and the word ``extinguishment'' in all those numbered treaties is just an abhorent word to the aboriginal people. But there has to be give and take in negotiations. If it's their jurisdiction, it's their problem. If they want self-government, that's self-government.

.1220

I agree with you on government spending. Ethel Blondin-Andrew gave a tremendous talk to us a few weeks ago. It was spontaneous, and just about what we could be doing wrong with too much government money and hurrying lifestyles. In our rush to do these things with government money, we may be doing more damage than good. I know I see it now with government in the north. I saw it when I was on the CRTC.

I was on the CRTC in the 1970s. I remember elders coming to the hearings here in Ottawa and telling us how much damage we had done by allowing CBC in the north. That's what we were talking about. The Inuit live in a violent climate, but they are not violent people. I asked what was causing more violence, and they said Hockey Night in Canada and Starsky and Hutch. Do you remember Starsky and Hutch, or am I too old for you guys?

Things we've done because we wanted to do the right thing have done a lot of damage to cultures. Too much government can do a lot of damage. That comes back to what I said originally, that there are only three basic industries up there: mining, tourism, and forestry.

The problem with forestry is that they are only charging 20¢ a cubic metre in the Yukon, which is worth $20, $30, $40, and up to $60 in other places.

When I was up there last week, I said that if the only way the cutters can operate up there is to have their trees given to them for nothing, ship them raw to B.C., and not have a sustainable yield policy, then they shouldn't be in the business. These are major problems.

I know the committee was impressed with Conne River. I talked to some of the members. I heard that it went well out there, just the way they're operating.

On social assistance, I'm not averse to that on work. I was a mayor, and I think that rather than just having a flow-through social assistance program, we should look at more things that we do with municipalities. Band councils can decide what roads have to be done, what house renovations - there is a tremendous need for renovations of houses - and things like that can be done, as long as it doesn't become a make-work project.

I don't want it to take away from what we're doing in economic development. I think we should open that up along the lines you're saying, John. Now's the time to do it, because there are chiefs out there who want to do it. We have about five or six in the country who want to have that as a project of their own.

It takes tremendous prestige on the part of the chief. He has to have the trust of his whole community to do this. There's a system in place, and unless the communities are willing to support the chief, it's very difficult for the chief to break the social assistance program overnight and run it much like a municipality. I think it's healthier, and I think it's better, as long as it's not the end-all of work programs.

On the suppliers being burnt, I know the political problems here are that we don't want people who deal with first nations to go away thinking they've been ripped off. On the other hand, I made it clear to every supplier contractor in Canada that if the federal government contracts the job, you get paid.

If they're dealing with a third party, the first nations, they go in there and make their own business decisions and they cut their own deal, because we cannot be responsible for deals we're not party to. Those are bottom lines. I hear it quite often. I don't want it to happen. I want them to be paid, but at the same time I'm not going to send messages out there that the federal government is going to guarantee every bad business deal. I'm just not going to do it.

Do you want to deal with the costs?

Mr. Williams: Our historical costs expected for the 1995-96 year will be in the order of about $62 million or $63 million. Over the last couple of years, they've been in that order of magnitude. They essentially focus on our costs to provide funding where acts have in fact been passed of a self-government nature, which would be basically about $2.7 million or $2.8 million for Sechelt, and a major contribution for the Cree and the James Bay agreement.

There's about $7.7 million that is also provided to facilitate discussions in negotiations of future self-government agreements.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

I have a question having to do with the self-government policy that is going to be announced. In your submission you indicate that it will be practical, pragmatic, flexible, and it will involve all levels of government.

.1225

I'm just wondering if we could have a sneak preview or some more detail, specifically about whether the community-based self-government negotiation process is going to be continued or will be part of that policy. I understand some of those programs in those negotiations have been discontinued and it's a cause of concern to some of the first nations.

Mr. Irwin: Okay, I'll deal with that in broad terms and let the detail of that - your area would be the Union of Ontario Indians?

Mr. DeVillers: Yes, it's that area of the council.

Mr. Irwin: The former government spent $50 million over a eight-year period on community-based self-government. Not one agreement was signed. If you recall, I think the Reform Party raised the issue in the House at the start. I came to the job relatively new. I wanted to know more about it.

I had at least six meetings with the various chiefs in this country. At each meeting I said, look, I have to go back to Parliament and I have to answer questions in Question Period. I told them they had better start giving me some final agreements within six months. At the end of the six-month period, I didn't have one final agreement. They thought I was kidding.

At that point I had my deputy minister, my senior assistant deputy ministers and my associate deputy ministers sit down and say, okay, let's put a very objective spin on where these various first nations, tribal councils and groupings are across the country. We're going to go with those who are close to finished, and tell those who are spinning their wheels that's what we're doing.

It shocked them. We sent out letters. I gave many of them the benefit of the doubt. If they were 80% completed and the staff said they were only 70% completed, I said okay. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but I cut off a lot of them and told them that they spend a lot of money and get no results, and that this has to be product-driven.

I'll tell you what it did. Negotiations sure speeded up. The budget decreased from $50 million to $3 million in the first six months, then to $1.5 million and then to $250,000 in the first quarter. The days are gone when we can pay for consultants ad nauseam and travel all over the country to just sit there. This has to be product-driven. I'm prepared to sit down and negotiate a product, but I'm not prepared to sit down and decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Unfortunately, the Union of Ontario Indians got caught in this. There have been several meetings with them, but the decision's been made.

Do you want to bring them up to date on where the union was?

Mr. Jack Stagg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Do you mean the United Indian Councils?

Mr. Irwin: No, the Union of Ontario Indians.

Mr. Stagg: Are you asking about the Union of Ontario Indians only on this issue of the community-based self-government?

Mr. Irwin: Yes. It's no longer funded.

Mr. Stagg: Yes. I'm not current with the issue.

Mr. Irwin: Who is?

Mr. Stagg: We can provide more details to you.

Mr. Irwin: Yes, we can provide more details, and maybe this is not the appropriate place. I don't want to embarrass them.

Mr. DeVillers: I didn't want to get into specifics. I wanted to know what the progress would be, how it would fit in the formulation of the new policy, and how any progress that had been made in that process would be incorporated into the new policy.

Mr. Stagg: Yes, I can talk about that in a general sense.

What we hope to do is make sure the negotiations we have had with those 8 groups and 37 first nations communities are not lost. On our side, we've told the negotiators to find a way, once the policy was introduced, to make sure those agreements were consistent with the policy of inherent right to self-government.

The range of subjects they've been dealing with at the table is more or less relatively close to the range of subjects we would consider seeing negotiated under the inherent right. There might be some other language used because we would hope to see the federal government and the provincial governments, in most instances, recognize those agreements as deserving of a larger protection under section 35 of part II of the Constitution Act.

We hope to see a fairly smooth transition from the agreements in principle to the final agreements we would have under the community-based self-government arrangements, going into the inherent right of self-government. We wouldn't lose the money, the time, the effort, and the energy that have been put into it to date.

.1230

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): That was a good presentation, Mr. Minister.

As you're aware, there are some places that don't want that Indian Act to open up.

You've been sending letters and there's a commitment - I think rightly so - that the portions of the Indian Act that are really archaic need to be cleaned up and can be, with agreement. But are we going to be dealing with the Indian Act in place with some people, like the Micmacs in Nova Scotia for instance, and are we going to have parts of it removed for other bands in other jurisdictions? I wonder if we're going to be moving ahead on some of these things, even though there may not be full agreement. The fear of off-loading is part of all of us.

Mr. Irwin: In some places there's opting in. For instance, Manitoba dismantling.... In the end, the first nations vote and they can decide whether they're in the process or out.

Amendments to the Indian Act can't be made on the basis of geography. It would have to be done nationally. I don't want to spend a lot of money on it. I have it in the general category of housekeeping; people of average intelligence with a certain knowledge of what's wrong can do it fairly quickly.

I made it clear to the aboriginal people in the letter that I want to move ahead with what they want to do, so that when you come to the committee you know there are one hundred chiefs who want to do this, or twenty-five tribal councils want to do this, so we don't have big-time hearings. We have it here and say these are obvious, let's clean this up as housekeeping. But it is not to take the place of the other more important things we're doing. I don't want it to detract from the other things.

You're right, let's go back to the fear factor. Some of the first nations, although they call the act terrible, archaic and paternalistic, are scared of my doing anything with it. For instance, in this thing about the sovereign, about a month and a half ago I was out in Saskatchewan or Manitoba - I can't remember which - and an elder told me I was the wrong person. I asked him who should be there. He said Roméo LeBlanc should be there. After I thought about it, it made some sense. As Governor General, he represents the sovereign. They tie in the Indian Act and the sovereign, but most of the bands, especially the band administrators - a lot of whom are women - who really have to do the day-to-day stuff are saying this is nuts, clean this up so we can get on with our business.

Mr. Murphy: It concerns me that some people may be looking to hold up moving ahead with native people taking responsibility because of the Indian Act, and arguing on that basis, so that other things don't happen and self-government steps aren't being taken. I'm concerned that in my own province there may be something....

Mr. Irwin: I think there's going to be a hiatus if we don't do something in the interim. We can't be hoping... When the inherent right policy comes out, we can't have vacuums or there will be chaos. I'm looking at this as cleaning up in the interim. It should not detract from the major stuff.

I think the chiefs understand that now. There was some concern originally. There was a lot of suspicion that this was just another way for the government to take away some of what they want to do. I've been to several assemblies and talked to them, and I think they're satisfied that this is housekeeping we should do.

The Chairman: Mr. Caron.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron (Jonquière): Thank you for your visit. In the press release that was put out to announce your visit to the committee..

Mr. Irwin: I speak French with a Sault-Sainte-Marie accent.

Mr. Caron: That's good. I can speak English with a Lac Saint-Jean accent.

.1235

In the news release that you put out to announce your appearance before the committee, you talked about the challenges that you will have to take up in the next three years. You mentioned three of them: narrow the gap between the demand for services among aboriginal peoples and on reserve and the average population - we are aware of the situation and we know that the needs are enormous; give effect to the inherent right of self- government; and transfer to First Nations responsabilities related to provincial type programs.

I don't see anything dealing with the development of policies supporting the First Nations in their effort to preserve their cultural identity. We know that First Nations have a small population and that it can be very expensive to maintain a cultural identity regarding language, education, schools and social programs.

For instance, it can be very expensive to maintain a school on a reserve with only a 100 students as there are no economies of scale. But it is important to keep that school open because it allows the community to maintain its culture and be itself.

You don't mention clearly in your news release that one of the priorities of the department is to help First Nations' communities to maintain their culture, their cultural identity. Nothing in your priorities tell me that in 50 years, or that in 25 years there will still be 68 First Nations in Canada.

Won't we rather find ourselves with people who will live on specific lands, who will have a better standard of living than today and who will have certain government powers that will resemble those of a municipality? But will we still be able to talk about First Nations with a very specific cultural identity? Is your department helping the First Nations maintain their identity?

[English]

Mr. Irwin: It's very important because it comes back to values. You could have all the self-government in the world, all the money in the world, but you're not going to be happy if you don't have values.

Cultural identity is a part of values. It goes even deeper than being great for the country. I think the stronger cultural identity is, the stronger the values are, the fewer suicides we have. There's such a state of despair out there. Especially in off-reserve situations in cities like Winnipeg with 65,000 Indians, Toronto with 50,000, or Kenora, Indian children have lost their sense of values from the time they're four or five.

Values are important to everything we're doing. They are important to making this a richer country culturally, they are important to health, and they are important to whether or not they're going to go ahead as businessmen. If they feel good about themselves, they'll be better teachers and better businessmen.

As far as the inherent rights process is concerned, I see them as having the inherent right to cultural language - their own culture and their own language. It's indirectly built into what we're doing educationally. In the last ten to fifteen years we have moved most of the administration for education across the country to the aboriginal people. They're putting out more and more graduates. I think the next step is now to move jurisdiction so that they can do their own curriculum development and teacher certification.

This basically is empowerment; they feel they have a say in it. What they want to do when they're negotiating with the boards of education, the municipalities or with the province is to put a more cultural spin on their education. There's only one way of doing mathematics or sciences, but they want to get into that. They want to be able to do it, and I'm prepared to go along those lines.

Specifically and along the lines you're talking about, we're now working with the Micmac in Nova Scotia, as well as with the Nishnawbe-Aski in northern Ontario, which is a huge area of almost a thousand miles by a thousand miles and contains 48 first nations. There's also the Manitoba dismantling and Treaty 3 in Fort Frances and Thunder Bay.

.1240

Are you going to tell them about the money?

Mr. Williams: In our education budgets for this year, we spent about $8.2 million for first nations to support 73 cultural centres, to undertake the kinds of initiatives the minister was just talking about.

Mr. Duncan: To start off where you finished, Mr. Minister, my point on the financial institutions didn't relate to federal guarantees. It related to the fact that when there is a contractual arrangement, the ground rules for suppliers of goods and services are different when they go to court because it is a non-reserve activity. There must be a way to address this because people who are accustomed to dealing in the private sector or with governments all of a sudden find there is a third set of rules of which they were completely unaware. This places the supplier and the reserve population in a position detrimental to both.

I am not saying one should have a leg up -

Mr. Irwin: I understand that. For instance, no mechanic liens or those types of things -

Mr. Duncan: That's right.

Mr. Irwin: They are held back on the litigation. Most of the bigger suppliers know that. They know they can sue the first nations. I see what you are talking about periodically - they are unaware there are certain restrictions on litigation. It is an ongoing problem. I would offer the miracle solution if I had it, but I don't.

Mr. Duncan: But until you identify a problem you don't set the legislators or negotiators or whatever to work. Maybe you're already doing something. I'm not sure.

Mr. Irwin: Under the red book, I am supposed to come up basically with an indenture that looks like a mortgage. You know the feeling about putting mortgages on reserves. I've talked to lawyers and chiefs across this country. I've asked them how we can do this, how we can invent this magic document. What are your thoughts on this? How should we do it?

Mr. Duncan: In terms of the whole mortgage situation, it is different from a contractual relationship in terms of a new building, a new facility for the community. I have some ideas on an opting-out option for people on reserve if they want to designate their lands as being freehold. I believe they should have that ability. On an individual basis, it certainly solves part of the problem.

Mr. Irwin: Or even on a mix-and-match basis. Because of growing populations, there is a lot of demand for land. A lot of these reserves are in swampy areas and have no more land. Without even talking in terms of expanding the reserve, let's look at another land base off the reserve and where there are different rules. Going from a reserve type of philosophy to a freehold type of philosophy is going to take a lot of discussion. I have heard banker after banker make this proposal, but it's not washing with the aboriginal people.

Mr. Duncan: It depends on who you talk to. Anyway, I think we have had some dialogue there.

In terms of some of the problems on reserves, such as the poverty and some other terrible situations, you did mention the example of Pukatawagan. What this brings to mind is the terrible juxtaposition of those kinds of conditions on reserve and a chief and council who were reportedly taking junkets, at great expense, to Arizona and other places.

.1245

Mr. Irwin: The Dominican Republic.

Mr. Duncan: Maybe it was the Dominican Republic. Anyway, some of the reserve travel budgets or expenditures on travel are exceeding those of provincial cabinets at this point. Surely there is something the minister can do to address this kind of circumstance. This is really going to the heart of whether or not the money is getting to the people who really need and deserve assistance.

If you will indulge, I have just three more thoughts. I would like to discuss Bill C-31 for a second.

I have had a lot of feedback from every rank of on-reserve individual. If you have a clear and concise definition and policy on how copies of Bill C-31 are being issued, I would very much appreciate knowing it. There is a huge misunderstanding in the native community as to how it is occurring. I personally would like to know if we are regularly issuing copies of Bill C-31 to people of aboriginal ancestry who live in the United States. If we are, what kind of rules go with that?

On education, I would just like to point out very quickly a concern I have with the estimates. We have the list of schools, of capital expenditures. We have Pelican Lake, Saskatchewan, as an example. The estimates show a $6.9 million expenditure that was originally planned at $2.8 million. These things seem to have gone topsy-turvy.

There is no indication anywhere in the estimates as to how many students they can handle, what the capacities of these schools are. For accountability purposes, I would like to see an indication of per capita student expenditures for these schools, because something doesn't add up. I have been to the Pelican Lake reserve, so this type of expenditure just seems totally out of place for the size of the community and for the adjacent public school system. People in both communities are having quite some difficulty with this.

Last, I would just like to mention that we focus a lot on spending, but the other side of the ledger is revenue. I think the department really needs to take a lead there, and I am concerned you are not doing so at this point.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Irwin: [Inaudible - Editor] Pukatawagan situation shows the best and worst of the parliamentary system and the democracy we live in. It's a tremendously open system in which there can be a clash of wills, but that's the way it should be. Here is what happened, because it never came out.

The board of education up at Pukatawagan has something like 29 white teachers. It's hard to get a teacher to go there. They went to the board of education at Pukatawagan and said we're having a convention in Winnipeg and we'll split the costs; we'll have it in the Dominican Republic, and we'll pay our portion and you pay what it takes to get yourselves there. I can't remember how it worked, but there was a split. The board of education in Pukatawagan said, fine, this will be a little perk and we'll split these costs with you.

.1250

The headline in the Manitoba press was that forty Indians were going to the Dominican Republic, and I got nailed in the House of Commons. I don't think a lot of the blame can go to those in the Reform Party because they understood, like everybody in Canada, that 40 Indians going to the Dominican Republic; in fact, it was 29 white school teachers from the south who were working in Pukatawagan.

This is an example of where the system can work better by talking to the chiefs. During the Pukatawagan crisis I spent three hours in a tent with a fire with that chief. I phoned him, told him I had a political problem and that this was what had happened in the House of Commons. He that explained it was the board of education, there were 29 white teachers; this was a split. He said he would phone me back in an hour. He had his whole council there and they unanimously reversed the decision and cancelled the trip. The trip never took place.

It has not come forward anywhere in this country until today that they never went to Dominican Republic. They had their teaching seminar in Winnipeg. There was not one word anywhere in Canada, not even in the Manitoba paper, that these were not natives going to the Dominican Republic but white school teachers who worked in the reserves. That's the best and worst of the parliamentary system.

Under Bill C-31, if an aboriginal woman married a white man she lost her status, where the reverse wasn't true. To me it should have made no difference where she lived. She could have been living in Europe. If an aboriginal woman married a white she lost her status as an Indian woman, so what's the difference? It's a matter of substance, not geography.

The 6.1 and 6.2 part is in there. You go to 6.1 and 6.2 and eventually you become.... We made you a non-Indian under the act. I have these women who are 100% Indian saying ``You're telling me I'm not an Indian? Where do you get off?'' Bill C-31 is finished, but by the 6.1 and 6.2 process, depending on who they marry, they eventually become non-Indians again. We had it in there hoping that in 10 or 15 years it would go away, but the problems are starting to occur. I think we will have to address the 6.1 and 6.2 sections at some point. Maybe it could be part of the clean-up of the Indian Act.

I'm not too sure about Pelican Lake. Does anybody want to deal with that?

Mr. Williams: I can get the specific details on it, but it would be a combination of two factors. One is updating the costs, which in this particular case could have risen significantly from the initial class D estimate. Equally, there would be an increase in students, and very often the first nation is able to attract students who are going to schools off-reserve back to the reserve. Of course that would result in a larger school, which would reflect the change in costs. But we can get specific details on that and provide them to the committee.

The Chairman: Pelican Narrows?

Mr. Williams: Pelican Lake in Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): Mr. Minister, I would like to talk to you, this morning, about education and aboriginal people. As you know, education is an important concern for me as well as for the other members of my sub-committee.

As you said earlier, our sub-committee visited several communities and studied various education systems. I'm very happy to hear that you consider that our sub-committee and its report are important. I have two questions to ask.

First, can you guarantee that our report will not simply be shelved and forgotten?

Secondly, several people I talked to said that they would like to see the establishment of a northern science development centre that would provide scientific training to more young aboriginal people. I would like to have your opinion on the matter. Would you agree with the establishment of such a centre?

.1255

Mr. Irwin: My answer to your second question is yes.

Mr. Bertrand: Yes?

Mr. Irwin: Definitely.

[English]

I like the idea of a Nordic centre.

[Translation]

As to your second question,

[English]

it depends on how hard we push it. It's the only portion of my budget I wouldn't let the Minister of Finance touch. I dug in on education with that zero budgeting we did. That's the only part that made no sense to me at all to cut and have kids without skills going on welfare. If you look at the budget you can see it's intact and enhanced. There are good results there.

In just about every speech I make to aboriginal people across the country I point that out, even if it's not written. I find it's almost Freudian. I slip into how important education is. I believe in it and I know the members of the committee believe in it. I think all the caucuses believe it's important. I think the report will be very important as a tool to do what needs to be done.

Mr. Bertrand: Thank you very much. It will encourage us to keep working harder.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I would like to refer to one of the comments made by my colleague from the Reform. It has to do with Newfoundland, and I'm from that province. He mentioned workfare and the project that took place in Conne River.

Mr. Minister, I understand there's a special criterion attached to using social funds for training or employment. I'm wondering what that criterion is. Also, can all the 600-plus bands in Canada take advantage of that particular program or are there certain bands that are designated for that?

Mr. Irwin: Right now there's no real criterion, so we have an opportunity to work with the bands who want to do it. There's a tremendous opportunity there to work with them. It means matching up the social assistance budgets I have and some of the HRD budget Lloyd Axworthy has and trying to use a little imagination.

For instance, Conne River is the band that needs the road, isn't it?

Mrs. Payne: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Bertrand: It was mentioned a few times.

Mr. Irwin: We could work with the province on that road. I'd rather see the aboriginal people from Conne River working on that road when it's being built than being on social assistance. That's bigger than municipal; it's almost provincial. It's a fairly extensive road, but if the work has to be done, I'd rather see the aboriginal people trained to work on it because it's their road. If the contract is tendered there should be a provision that they use as many local people as possible - go with the lowest tender but use as many of the local people as possible. It just happens in that area that they're mostly members of the Conne River band.

Mrs. Payne: I gather you consider the project at Conne River to be a successful one.

Mr. Irwin: It's not successful yet because the work on the road hasn't been done yet.

Mrs. Payne: Well, at this point at least.

Mr. Irwin: Yes, it's an opportunity. We've made an offer to the province on that road. The toughest negotiators on the other side are from Newfoundland. But there has been an offer there. I believe we have it on the table. We're waiting to hear back from the provincial minister of highways in Newfoundland, since he's not on the record.

Mrs. Payne: Is this open to all bands? Is it restricted to any one band or anything? Can any Indian band use these funds?

Mr. Irwin: Wherever we can use government funds to provide employment for economic development, we'll do it. As long as I don't wind up with a big make-work project - getting to what Mr. Duncan says - where it's government-driven. We have to create capital as well as spend capital, so they all have to go: economic development, sustainable businesses, and municipal types of work.

.1300

Mr. Stagg: There's a couple of other examples as well. One is the community of Eskasoni, which many of you have probably seen written about. That's a fairly clever use of a combination of UI and social assistance. The object there is to get people basically working with the money that normally would be just paid as assistance. The early returns on that are that it seems to be working very well and quite a number of people from that community are now getting work experience they probably would not have had without that program.

The second program is just getting under way, and that's in Saskatchewan with the FSIN. Again, it's our department and, as the minister said, Mr. Axworthy's department. We're looking at finding ways of getting young people that first job.

All of us here know how difficult it is to get an employment record. Very often getting a job relatively quickly when you're a youngster can lead to other jobs and other experience. The whole idea of that project is to get young people who are graduating from school into the workforce to get them some initial experience so that they have that record, that experience, on their c.v., and get them started in the right direction from a very early time.

Those are just two examples. There are others that are contemplated and others that are going on in the country. Those are two, one that we have a great deal of hope for and the other that seems to be starting off at least on the right foot, Eskasoni.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you, Minister. I'm enjoying the session this morning.

I was just referring to page 9 in your document, where you talk about a symposium on aboriginal financing in Fredericton. You had mentioned the possibility of an aboriginal bank as one of the ideas they were pursuing. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on where the work of this task force is right now, what their plans are.

Second, if there are some initiatives geared toward an aboriginal bank, how are local communities involved in this, or how would they possibly be involved through a more regional organization?

Mr. Irwin: They are actually three separate things, but the banks always seem to come together some place in the country. When I talked to Doug Peters, who has had banking experience, on just how it could be done, he said you set up your national bank and you almost franchise it. It sounds pretty simple in fact to a banker, but on the other side it looks much more complicated.

The Saskatchewan proposal was a tender where the aboriginal people of the FSIN asked all financial institutions to make a proposal, and Toronto Dominion came up with the best proposal. We worked with them to help them with that package, but most of that work they did themselves, between the banks and the FSIN.

What was in Manitoba was the dismantling, the banks seeing this as an opportunity. We can have all the policy in the world, but as the Prime Minister says, a dollar goes where a dollar wants to go. The banks were there because they saw this as an economic opportunity. They were very positive there; quite a few senior people were there, eight or nine people yesterday.

The New Brunswick thing was something we pushed as a department, and I'll let Al address where it is and where it's going.

Mr. Williams: As the minister said, the symposium itself had about 126 representatives, some from private institutions and some senior aboriginal economic development leaders as well as chiefs. From that we have struck six task forces, each headed up by an aboriginal leader in the country, dealing with the following six topics: accessing capital in the short term; creating a financial institution, which we've just talked about; looking at innovative taxation practices, again to facilitate getting capital on reserve; looking at the human resource skills that are needed by first nations in order to access and utilize capital; trying to improve the communication network amongst first nations and between the first nations and the non-first nation communities; and looking at the regulatory impediments that currently exist and what can be done to work with those or to make suggestions on modifications to them in order to facilitate access and capital on reserve.

.1305

These six task forces are chaired by Chief Larry Sault, whom the minister referred to earlier on. We are expecting to have interim reports by each of the six committees sometime towards the end of August, with final reports to the minister before the end of the calendar year.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I just have one other question, which is not necessarily a short question. I'm wondering whether you see any differences, from a very broad level, between Inuit communities and first nations communities in terms of some of the key challenges and priorities.

Mr. Irwin: Yes. South of 60 there's been a bigger take-up of education. You can see that in the figures in the book - the percentage divergences. North of 60, for instance, on marketing.... Part of our red book commitment was marketing. I see pieces of Inuit sculpture, for instance, running for $14,000 or $15,000 - beautiful pieces, but their marketing is amazing. Any time I see a shop I go in and ask how they do this, especially out in B.C. It's just a better technique. They'll use videos, they'll take the piece and have a little bit of music and some talk - you can do it for a couple of hundred bucks - and they send it out to buyers all over the world. So the Inuit are doing a much better job at marketing their art.

They have very similar problems on health. The Inuits have a much more severe problem in the cost of food. We've allocated $17 million, but basics such as milk are very expensive up there. This is very important to them. They're different cultures; I mean, the Indians laugh at my jokes, the Inuit don't. The Indians tell me they're more courteous. They're just different groups.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Also, are there different challenges the department feels it has to work towards in the north between the two communities? Some of those are geographic or location-bound.

Mr. Irwin: This is a good point. We're talking about the public government with the Inuit. They haven't defined it; it's just a term, whereas the Indians have a better idea right now of what they want to do in public government.

They're really at the basics of where they want to go. For instance, on schools, there is a process. First you'll take over administration, then you'll take over jurisdiction. The process is more advanced south of 60 because there's a tremendous amount of debate about public government in the north without really defining just what we mean by public government.

Actually, probably Jack Anawak could give you a better idea of this, or Elijah. I don't feel qualified to give you those differences.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. I was more interested from the department's perspective, and what the department was seeing. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, the committee expresses our gratitude for you and your staff people coming to visit with us today and sharing the outlook for the future of the department. We're very gratified to have you here to share this information with us. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for asking some excellent questions and working hard to get some good information out. Thank you, one and all.

Members of the committee, I need you for one second; don't rush off too quickly. We did have a discussion in the steering committee about dealing with the report we're going to be dealing with. The researchers are busy pulling this report together after input from everybody. We were going to get a small group together some time in July, one from each party, rather than hauling everybody back. Then in August we will have one more meeting where the whole committee will be able to look at this.

.1310

We just need a motion that is set out here to....

An hon. member: I so move.

Mr. Duncan: Just for clarification, in July and August you're talking about getting four people in the same room.

The Chairman: Right. I would like to do that. I would like to have this done by August.

Mr. Duncan: Are there some recommended weeks or days?

The Chairman: That has yet to be determined. I'm thinking of July 17 or 18. Then when we're -

Mr. Duncan: What day of the week is that?

The Chairman: Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. Duncan: I'm here the previous week, but not that specific week. Could it be the Thursday or Friday?

The Chairman: I'll have to check into that. I understand the education subcommittee is...maybe we can book it together a little more, .piggyback the two of them. We'll look into that.

The August meeting is because the Liberal Party is having a caucus meeting. All of that will be here, so when we have the full meeting only the four extra will need to come in, if we could have it either a day before or a day after.

Mr. Duncan: Do you know the dates of the Liberal caucus?

The Chairman: We don't know that yet.

Mr. Duncan: Would it be in the first two weeks or the last two weeks?

The Chairman: The first two weeks. We'll get all that sorted out. We'll figure out the days.

That's agreed.

We will now adjourn.